[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: [APROG] :notify()

- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 07:33:32 PDT
- From:
- Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

    I may be wrong, but I recall reading long ago that :notify does what it does
    to leave open the possibility of sending extra arguments.  :tell, on the
    other hand, would have trouble parsing extra arguments (for example, those
    to the builtin notify()), since it gobbles up all the args into tostr().

    Besides, since it expects a complete string, any :notify method can be as
    simple as 'return notify(this, @args);'.  It's the LEAN :TELL.

    -Quinn
    -http://www.bga.com/~quinn/

    At 10:40 PM 7/29/96 PDT, Richard Godard wrote:
    >Hi,
    >
    >Just a silly question. Is there any compelling reason for the :notify()
    >verbs not to do a tostr(@args) ?
    >Is it a technical, philosophical or historical reason?

Follow-Ups:

- Re: [APROG] :notify()

- From: tom@mvision.com (Tom Ritchford)

- Prev: Re: [APROG] :notify()
- Next: Re: [APROG] :notify()
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index